Conquer Club

Please pardon me if this issue has been brought up previously, I had no idea what search words to use to look for this and frankly wasn't really sure what to title this post

I'm a brand new player. I've only finished one game. To be perfectly honest I probably haven't played this game in 10 years easily. Hard to find players amongst the Catan fanatics I'm friends with. And this is precisely my problem.

I've tried to pick my games based on low play level so I can ease back into the game but inevitably someone around the captain/major rank jumps in at the last minute. I find this kind of lame ganking of newbs is reprehensible in any game. I'd leave negative feedback but this seems to be common practice so that option seems to be inapropriate.

Clearly the point differential is not enough to discourage this practice. I think that there should be some kind of option to restrict games to a certain level of play. This could be an option set like a gameplay option when the game is created. It wouldn't have to be specific to levels. You could easily make it a three option selection of 1) all levels 2) lower 4 levels 3) upper 4 levels. Or if you want to make sure people can still progress without being left out of higher level games you could simply have the option of excluding high level rankers in low games and define low games as only the bottom 3 levels or so. Obviously you folks would need to figure out what would work best.

It seems to me that this would allow new players to get a hang of the online system and actually play a few games for more than 3 rounds to get into it. I realize all new people come in at different play levels from their table top experiences, but at least the high rankers wouldn't be able to pad their scores by destroying people who haven't even figured out the interface yet.

This has been my one significant frustration with this system. I am brand new to the site, the premium option would not help me as I do not know the community yet. I would simply like the option to cut my teeth without feeling stomped on. I don't think that people who do not feel like me should be restricted to a newbie area by any means, but as I said, I'd have appreciated some time to get my bearings.


as a final note, is there somewhere that warns people that this site doesn't auto-refresh? I had the opportunity to have a real time game but I ended up sitting there thinking the other people weren't making moves until I navigated away and back like an hour later. I felt like a bit of a moron and probably looked like an ass.
[/i]

join games last so u can see who is playing

This is a good suggestion. We have plans to introduce a sandbox for new recruits to play in in the future.

Eventually we will have auto-refresh on the games as well, but until Speed Games comes out we do not support realtime games, only casual games.

Thanks for the quick response

I don't mean to sound like an elitist or anything, but how about an option to block all players of a certain rank? I just get tired of losing games to moves that inexperienced or untalented players do that throw the game away. Does anybody else ever have this happen?

This has been suggested many times. O and by the way, it's worse when you're a private and some stupid Colonel joins you game and murders you. That really sucks.

haha ya i've been on that side of the shaft too

if a colonel joins your game and takes out a private he wins a great 9 points

wah hoo but if you take him out you when 30 or more points

I never join games I do not want people thinking i pick on the new people, but there are alot of new people who join mine for my points. lol i move from colonel to capt and back on a weekly basis it seems. all part of the game I play to play and let anyone take my points.

Also you do not get better unless you play better players

Well said Wacicha. This suggestion has already been rejected.

I've noticed that a lot of higher rank players won't play public games because they don't want to end up losing a ton of points to lower ranks and also just don't want constant problems with deadbeats. To create private games and invite everybody over certain rank is too time consuming and too much nusiance mail for players.

An option on game set up to limit entries to a specific rank (for a really evenly matched game) or for 'ranks above' for those who don't mind playing within a certain range of ranks. I don't know if this is technically possible, but it would certainly be a great way of challenging a wider section of players than you can by setting up private games without the worry that you are going to end up playing too many people at a rank you don't find challenging or enjoyable.

You could also have 'ranks below' for lower rank players who are perhaps fairly new and want a more 'friendly' level of game without some predator colonel coming in and ripping them to shreds.

This would solve your dilema of to ban or not to ban newbies from team games as the originator of the game could specify the ranks allowed.

It's on the *To-Do* list already. Been suggested many many times.

OK, sorry, I did search to do list first but coulodn't find it



DoW

I figured it would be nice to add a minimum rank/ maximum rank setting for games. It would allow players to target players of certain rank to play against. It would be particularly helpful for those players seeking to climb the scoreboards or to filter out potentially unwanted nublings from joing games.

What do you guys think? Discuss.

This has been suggested before, and right now they have/are in the process of hiding team games from new recruits so…

wow, hecter changed his Display picture!

i think there should be groups where only certain people can join for example

beginner=only unranked/private/Sergent can join
intermediate=only Sergent/lieutenant/captains can join
professionals= only Major/Colonel/generals can join

*this would be an option you tick*
*if you move up/or down in rankings you still stay in the game*

this would stop deadbeats joining games with professionals/intermediates and not make a move and this would also stop pro's joining game with beginners for the points and these are two major problems.

how will this work

Well at the start the person who creates a game as normal can tick for example i would like this game to be grouped

would you be able to make an "ungrouped" game that lets anyone in?

i dont like the it i like playing good player of all kind i even partner with some of them but if you had groups of deadbeats and nondeadbeats i would go for that

Also your "group" would have to be defaulted through when you created (and then greyed) so that you can't create a game "out of your league".

C.

s.xkitten wrote:would you be able to make an "ungrouped" game that lets anyone in?

Yes you would still be able to mkae ungrouped games

Good idea. It's not fair that there are only the elite games. Personally, I am even starting to look nervously over my shoulder at those below me now that I have finally reached captain

what about a restriction on joining games based on the negatives feedback ?

For instance, a player with a certain amount of negative feedbacks, something like 15-20, should not be able to join any public games. That could avoid games screwed up by just 1 player (what can annoy up to 5 other players !!! )
That way negative feedbacks may have a real weight on accounts and may relieve some of the administrators' work or at least not penalize players while administrators have a long list of "negative feedbacks players" to deal with.
Moreover, having a limit of negative feedbacks can discourage people to create new accounts just to annoy other players.
So, once the limit is reached then the account should be banned; of course, there should be a kind of warning email sent to that player before that limit is reached.
For instance, at 10 neg. feedbacks, the account receives a notice email saying that if there's 10 more negative feedbacks then the account will be banned. That way, the owner may send an email explaining what is happening with his account (which might have been hacked or something else).

Of course, you can see people who take advantage out of this limit and spam negative feedbacks on "good" players. That's why i thought about a log of player's leaving negative feedbacks. So that if someone creates 20 accounts just to leave negative feedbacks, those negative feedbacks should not be taken in account for the limit and of course those accounts should be banned too. So, you can check this kind of account regarding the number of its games played and its negative feedbacks left.

I hope this suggestion is not too long to read but i really think it can improve the fun in game and on CC in general.

thats just mean. what if someone got a lot of feedback for deatbeating but he was in a hospital for a while. then he has a bunch of neative feedback and cant play any public games no

well.... the limit could be a counter that is relative to the negative feedback but not the number of neg. feedbacks itself. I mean that counter can be reseted after a while or by an administrator if the reason given by the owner is good enough.

For instance, let's say you accumulated too many neg. fb. then your account has been banned after the warning emails sent to you... because you were unable to get access to CC. In that case you can send an explanation email to an administrator who can check if your neg. fb are justified or not.

And it is a kind of the same system used by most of free email hosting; After a while of non-active use, your email account is suspended, and sometimes simply deleted.

If you are able to select only ranks the same as yours or higher can join
no more dead beats no more playing the same player with two or more names and a fair game losing or winning the same points as the other players.
Or has this been asked before

Bilbo
now where did I put that ring.......